Talk:Bon-Bon (short story)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article needs an infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern
This article is supported by the Short story task force. (with unknown importance)
This article is supported by the 19th century task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
A fact from Bon-Bon (short story) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 24 April 2008.
Wikipedia

[edit] Really?

Does this really deserve its own article? Can't we focus on improving the quality of Poe articles that already exist before we start adding new ones? At this rate, we'll never have a Poe featured topic. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, since it's still here, we might as well do it right and get it up on the Did You Know? section of the main page. I'm going to expand this five-fold (as per the requirements now that it's over 5 days old) and nominate it. In the meantime, please don't add to the article (it'll just make my job harder to expand by 5x). Feel free to drop me suggestions on my talk page or here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

I'm all for combining references as long as they're the same; but I'm not a fan of combining references that are similar but not the same. If one footnote is from, say, page 2, and another is from page 3, those two references shouldn't both say "pages 2-3" should they? I prefer specificity... nothing against the editor that made the changes. But if we're aiming for verifiability, I think this is stronger. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, adding in those cite templates was much appreciated. Nicely done! :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)